Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is located in the first part of the Canadian Constitution and came into effect on April 17, 1982. The Charter is a document that outlines a set of constitutional principles that assist in creating a free and democratic country and is the most important of the laws in Canada. Some of the laws include: Fundamental freedoms (e.g. freedom of expression); democratic rights (e.g. the right to vote); mobility rights (e.g. the right to live wherever one choses in Canada); legal rights (e.g. the right to life and security); equality rights; language rights; minority-language educational rights and aboriginal and treaty rights. These laws guarantee the basic values of fairness, respect and tolerance for every

I truly believe that The Supreme Court is currently effective at maintaining and upholding the rights and freedoms of Canadians. I think The Supreme Court is necessary and is vital to our society. The Supreme Court brings justice to not only individuals but considers the needs and betterment of society in the R.v. Jordan case, Irwin Toy Ltd. V. Quebec and Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott.

This paper discusses the review of the Ontario Court of Appeal between Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of Upper Canada. The structure of this paper will begin with the facts of the case which includes both the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Divisional Court decision, and the conflicting issues of the case. The second portion discusses an analytical point of the case which focuses on the limitations clause of the Charter. In this paper, I will be demonstrating that the rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. - Facts of the case Trinity Western University (TWU) is a private university in British Columbia that provides an education based on evangelical Christian principles.

However contemporary Canada is not without its issues, as stated earlier. Even with these important lessons, and our written out charter that has the basic rights for humans, we still fail to support and provide these rights to many marginalised communities and

In 1982 the Canadian Constitution was patriated in Canada, and with it came the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document that set out to create a just society with liberty and justice for all (3). This new constitutional document however, may not be the beacon for social justice that it has been trumped up to seem. In Joel Bakan’s book, “Just Words: Constitutional Rights and Social Wrong,” he argues that the document is inherently flawed because it is enforced through the means of conservative institutions (3). In this book review I argue that the book does an effective job critiquing the Charter. The paper will be formatted in the following way.

Canadian Senate Reform The Senate, which consists of one hundred and five appointed members, was created to represent the rights and interests of Canadians in all regions. It is known as the superior house within Canada’s bipartisan parliamentary democracy (Joyal, 2003). There is no question that Canada is in fact, a democratic country and The Senate exists, in theory, to ensure the continuation of this. As democracy is frequently defined as “power vested in the people” (Stilborn, 1992), it is not uncommon for individuals to see the country’s democratic methods as a largely efficacious.

The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787. Yet, the government it created couldn’t rule over people’s lives until one more step was taken. Each state had to vote to ratify1 , or approve of it. By 1789, eleven states had ratified the new government.

Michael Mandel sees the Constitution as a problem. He proposes that the Charter of Rights was sold to Canadians on the basis that it is more self-governing and its soul function is “transforming power of the Charter to the people” and thus, giving government officials less power. The way that the Charter was “sold” he states was for it to act like an official document to guide individuals for protection of themselves, however, Mandel argues what becomes of judges and their function to enforce legal rights? In this case, he identifies with the Charter of Rights as a document that takes pride in its function in legalized politics. I do not agree with this statement, for the reason that one can express their right as an independent variable, this

In Document I they are taking out the Bill of Rights and putting that information elsewhere and enter information that doesn’t need to be in the Constitution. One of Thomas Jefferson's group leaders has sent a copy of his work and he noticed that he took out one part of information that needs to be in The Constitution. Without the Bill of Right the people will turn against their government. Thomas Jefferson said a complaint to his friend and wanted to know why he took out the Bill of Rights. With the Bill of Rights the people are under control because they accept what is written and why they look up to the Bill of Rights.

Civic Reflection Issue 1- Change in Point of View The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights which outlines and protects the basic rights and fundamental freedoms that all Canadians have. These include the fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, equality rights, language rights, and Aboriginal and treaty rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights is extremely important to the citizens of Canada as it has given important meaning to the protection of our rights. It makes sure that minorities and vulnerable groups are protected through equality rights.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote to James Madison: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth" seeing that some Federalist was skeptical of the idea of listing rights. James Madison called it "parchment barrier" but regardless of his skepticism the declaration of rights was added to the US Constitution13. Initially, some amendments proposed by Madison were rejected including his "proposal to extend free speech protections to the States. " What followed were debates over spelling out what constituted the Bill of Rights, especially the "due process of law" preserved under the 14th Amendment. However, it was not until in 1925, in Gitlow vs. New York, 268 U.S. 652, did the US Supreme Court found

There are many moments in Canada’s history that served to define the country. Some of these moments include Confederation in 1867, the discovery of insulin by Dr. Frederick Banting and his assistant Charles Best, the implementation of free health Care, the Canadian and Soviets hockey series in which Canada won, and many more. But, as argued in this paper, is the Canada Act in 1982. (It is important to keep in mind the Constitution Act, 1982 was annexed as a part of the Canada Act and may be referred to in this paper.) The Canada Act served to give Canada, and its populace, the greatest amount of independence and freedom that it has ever experienced, politically, culturally, and legally.

Canada is now known to be a diverse, multicultural, bilingual and inclusive nation largely as a result of his work. Pierre Elliott Trudeau also believed in an equal Canada for all, he is primarily the one to introduce rights and freedoms to the citizens of Canada. While some view Pierre Trudeau as impulsive, for enforcing the War Measures Act, Trudeau enacted this for the protection of Canadian citizens against radical extremist and his actions were more rational than impulsive for the situation that had suddenly occurred. Pierre Trudeau was one of Canada’s greatest Prime Minister’s, who’s impact fundamentally changed the course of the nation by introducing multiculturalism, for introducing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and for paradoxically upholding democracy by strong action during the October Crisis.

This corrupt system as some refer to it has many people confused and wondering what benefits are for Canadians. A specific case of the Charter being ineffective is the case Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward

This may cause a judge to render a decision based on obligation instead of holding true to their beliefs. This pressure is not easily felt as intensely by appointed judges, especially those with lengthy terms. In considering the equity of the pros and cons it is my opinion that the existing system in place works best. Every system is flawed.